A Comparative Analysis of Ethical Perceptions in Marketing Research: U.S.A. vs. Canada

The study compares Canadian and U.S. marketing researchers' attitudes, perceptions and intentions related to several areas of ethical concern. A particular focus involves salience of norms common to marketing research codes of ethics (COEs) and familiarity of such codes to marketing research pr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of business ethics 2000-10, Vol.27 (3), p.229-245
Main Authors: Giacobbe, Ralph W., Segal, Madhav N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attitude surveys
Attitudes
Business ethics
Business structures
Canada
Comparative studies
Corporate responsibility
Descriptive ethics
Ethical behavior
Ethical codes
Ethics
Market positioning
Marketing
Marketing consultants
Norms
Personal selling
Professional ethics
Professionals
Research ethics
Researchers
Saliency
Social ethics
Social sciences
Statistical analysis
United States
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The study compares Canadian and U.S. marketing researchers' attitudes, perceptions and intentions related to several areas of ethical concern. A particular focus involves salience of norms common to marketing research codes of ethics (COEs) and familiarity of such codes to marketing research professionals. Researchers' attitudes towards today's ethical climate are identified and compared between the two countries. Relationships are examined between familiarity, ethical intention and salience. Results indicate that U.S. and Canadian marketing researchers have similar perceptions of the relative importance of specific ethical norms, but worldwide COEs do not reflect these perceptions. Canadian marketing researchers report having a greater familiarity with their firms' adopted COEs, but this finding is moderated by the type of researcher. Among other findings, results indicate that familiarity influences ethical intention only for highly salient issues.
ISSN:0167-4544
1573-0697
DOI:10.1023/A:1006121122073